Indiana Coal Council v. Hodel

Citations: 118 F.R.D. 264; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 581; 1988 WL 5639Docket: Civ. A. Nos. 87-1016, 87-1020

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; January 24, 1988; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court addressed the motion for reconsideration by plaintiffs Indiana Coal Council, National Coal Association, and American Mining Congress regarding a December 1, 1987, Magistrate’s Order. The Magistrate had granted defendants' motion to quash a deposition notice and subpoena while denying the plaintiffs' motion to access the 'COALEX' database. The Court partially granted and partially denied the industry’s motion, vacating the Magistrate's reliance on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) but upholding the ruling itself.

The Court found that the industry's attempt to access the defendants' legal research system was novel yet fundamentally flawed, as discovery is intended to uncover facts, not assist in legal research. The Magistrate had classified COALEX as a 'confidential research system' under Rule 26(c)(7), which the Court determined was erroneous, noting that the data in COALEX is public and available to the industry’s counsel, thus not confidential. The Court clarified that the only potentially confidential aspect of COALEX is its operational coding, which does not fit the common understanding of 'research.'

In reviewing the merits under Rule 26(b), the Court concluded that the information sought by the industry did not constitute discoverable material, negating the need to assess defendants' compliance with Rule 26(b)(3) regarding materials prepared for litigation. The Court noted a lack of precedent compelling a party to provide legal research resources to an opponent, reinforcing its decision.

Industry seeks access to COALEX for legal research rather than factual evidence, arguing its relevance under the legislative history of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). However, this legislative history constitutes 'law' rather than 'evidence' as defined by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow discovery of admissible evidence but not legal resources. The primary evidence in administrative reviews is typically the administrative record itself, with legislative history serving as a legal argument rather than part of the court's record. Previous cases where courts compelled access to computer programs involved factual inquiries, not legal research, distinguishing them from the current request. The industry’s argument lacks a clear distinction from these previous cases and could set a problematic precedent by undermining fundamental discovery principles. Additionally, the industry claims defendants waived their defense to the motion to compel by permitting access to COALEX for the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC), but this does not constitute a waiver. The access granted by the Department of the Interior to a similar program, ALLEX, is also deemed irrelevant to this motion.

The Court declined to compel defendants to provide direct access to COALEX, acknowledging its value as a legal research tool. However, the Court deemed the defendants' refusal to conduct limited search requests unreasonable and encouraged the parties to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution for specific search requests related to legislative history. The December 1, 1987 Order by the Magistrate was vacated regarding its reliance on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) but affirmed based on Rule 26(b). Motions for costs and fees related to reconsideration by both industry and government were denied. The National Trust for Historic Preservation supported the industry plaintiffs' position but suggested that the government conduct search requests instead of granting direct access to COALEX, a proposal rejected by the Magistrate. COALEX, a computer-assisted legal research system with a cost of approximately $1.6 million, contains public documents and non-public items; the latter were not requested by the industry. Defendants asserted that reconfiguring access for limited searches would incur a cost of about $2,500. The defendants did not claim the material in COALEX was confidential, only that the search logic and library service purchased from Mead Data Central were. Industry's claims regarding waiver of privilege due to other states' litigation were deemed unfounded, as the states were not parties in the current case, and their requests did not involve disclosing confidential parts of COALEX. The interpretation of waiver presented by the industry was considered overly broad and unpersuasive.